DRE v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 280

DRE v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 280

By majority, the Court held that the trial judge's directions, read as a whole and in context, adequately brought home to the jury the disadvantages suffered by the appellant because of delay and the need for careful scrutiny. The use of "unsafe to convict" rather than "dangerous to convict" did not make the warning inadequate, and the judge was not required to repeat every example of disadvantage identified by defence counsel. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Conviction Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed by majority.
Legal Topics
['delay in Complaint' 'longman Direction' 'jury Directions' 'forensic Disadvantage' 'rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules' 'child Sexual Offences']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['delay in Complaint' 'longman Direction' 'jury Directions' 'forensic Disadvantage' 'rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules' 'child Sexual Offences']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Conviction Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's direction about delay and forensic disadvantage was an adequate Longman warning." 'Whether the appellant required leave under r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules because trial counsel did not seek further redirection after the summing-up.' 'Whether the phrase "unsafe to convict" was sufficient, or whether the trial judge was required to use the phrase "dangerous to convict".' 'Whether the trial judge was required to identify each specific disadvantage arising from delay.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court held that the trial judge's directions, read as a whole and in context, adequately brought home to the jury the disadvantages suffered by the appellant because of delay and the need for careful scrutiny. The use of "unsafe to convict" rather than "dangerous to convict" did not make the warning inadequate, and the judge was not required to repeat every example of disadvantage identified by defence counsel. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed by majority.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']